4 ms·

That's an explanation of how this is happening, not an argument that it should happen. What governments do is not some mysterious black-box that we can't influe

That's an explanation of how this is happening, not an argument that it should happen. What governments do is not some mysterious black-box that we can't influence.

ballenf 9y ago
I think we've all seen the story over and over: populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. So, maybe theoretically we can influence, but understanding the nature of what a self-interested, pragmatic government beaurocrat values is incredibly important. I think the parent comment and idea behind it needs to be explored further. Maybe there is a solution, but it will perhaps require an entirely new type of government. Democracies, as we know them, don't seem capable of solving this problem.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. Remove the word "populist" and you've just described most politicians ;-)
- zipwitch 9y ago
  Politicians aren't the problem. They don't exist in a vaccuum. They're a symptom. Democracy is only the problem insofar as we (here in the US) do not have one, we just pretend we do. Democracy and Republic both mean a government by the public. Voting once a year, donating money, and writing stuff on the net are utterly inadequate for that end. Public government needs educated and involved citizenry. It means putting in quite a bit of time.
  - KSteffensen 9y ago
    People in democracies get the politicians they deserve. Look at Italy, the USA, Argentina, Hungary, Denmark, wherever
- KSteffensen 9y ago
  Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism. People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    See the Ekklesia (Ancient Greece) for pro/con: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173
  - igravious 9y ago
    If jury duty is random why not political duty? I think your idea (is it your idea?) deserves a lot of attention. Maybe 2 years of service. 4 is a lot. That combined with Swiss-style direct democracy would go a long way I feel. And universal basic income.
    - tzs 9y ago
      > If jury duty is random why not political duty? Jurors are asked to do a couple fairly common tasks that most people do frequently throughout their lives: (1) listen to different sides of a story and decide which side to believe, and (2) decide the motives for a person's acts. A legislator is asked to judge complex policy questions often requiring extensive specialized knowledge. The arguments for and against are often long and complex. It's not a job you can expect to take some random adult off the street for and have them do it competently.
      - KSteffensen 9y ago
        Why should a career in party politics improve your ability to make these decisions? Do current law makers have to pass some kind of knowledge based test to be allowed to make the decisions?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    As someone who agrees with the idea, here's some arguments against it. 1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace. Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc. 2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process. 3) By not having the possibility of re-election, you remove any responsibility of the elected after they're elected.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  I don't think it's a problem of defining ever more detailed or different government rule sets, but a problem of the feedback between the people governed and the people governing. The institutions of law provide some help - mostly by beneficially slowing down how fast things can change, but the maintenance of a stable government is a balance of politicians and leaders do, and what people allow. A much more dynamic, and fragile relationship than most of us care to contemplate. There are more than "politician corrupted by power" stories, there are also many politician does a good thing and fades into the background, or politician leads well for a long time stories too. These are less exciting and usually receive far less press, because they are remarkable in their unremarkable outcomes.
- chongli 9y ago
  Honestly, I'd prefer to have a government repeatedly fail to implement its own agenda than one which whips violently to and fro like a tree in a storm. When we let the mob into the halls of power we get a lot of bloodshed and little good. The intransigence of the bureaucracy is a feature, not a bug.

That's an explanation of how this is happening, not an argument that it should happen. What governments do is not some mysterious black-box that we can't influence.

ballenf 9y ago

I think we've all seen the story over and over: populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. So, maybe theoretically we can influence, but understanding the nature of what a self-interested, pragmatic government beaurocrat values is incredibly important. I think the parent comment and idea behind it needs to be explored further. Maybe there is a solution, but it will perhaps require an entirely new type of government. Democracies, as we know them, don't seem capable of solving this problem.

clarkmoody 9y ago
> populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. Remove the word "populist" and you've just described most politicians ;-)
zipwitch 9y ago
Politicians aren't the problem. They don't exist in a vaccuum. They're a symptom. Democracy is only the problem insofar as we (here in the US) do not have one, we just pretend we do. Democracy and Republic both mean a government by the public. Voting once a year, donating money, and writing stuff on the net are utterly inadequate for that end. Public government needs educated and involved citizenry. It means putting in quite a bit of time.
- KSteffensen 9y ago
  People in democracies get the politicians they deserve. Look at Italy, the USA, Argentina, Hungary, Denmark, wherever
KSteffensen 9y ago
Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism. People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.
- walterbell 9y ago
  See the Ekklesia (Ancient Greece) for pro/con: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173
- igravious 9y ago
  If jury duty is random why not political duty? I think your idea (is it your idea?) deserves a lot of attention. Maybe 2 years of service. 4 is a lot. That combined with Swiss-style direct democracy would go a long way I feel. And universal basic income.
  - tzs 9y ago
    > If jury duty is random why not political duty? Jurors are asked to do a couple fairly common tasks that most people do frequently throughout their lives: (1) listen to different sides of a story and decide which side to believe, and (2) decide the motives for a person's acts. A legislator is asked to judge complex policy questions often requiring extensive specialized knowledge. The arguments for and against are often long and complex. It's not a job you can expect to take some random adult off the street for and have them do it competently.
    - KSteffensen 9y ago
      Why should a career in party politics improve your ability to make these decisions? Do current law makers have to pass some kind of knowledge based test to be allowed to make the decisions?
- ethbro 9y ago
  As someone who agrees with the idea, here's some arguments against it. 1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace. Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc. 2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process. 3) By not having the possibility of re-election, you remove any responsibility of the elected after they're elected.
dv_dt 9y ago
I don't think it's a problem of defining ever more detailed or different government rule sets, but a problem of the feedback between the people governed and the people governing. The institutions of law provide some help - mostly by beneficially slowing down how fast things can change, but the maintenance of a stable government is a balance of politicians and leaders do, and what people allow. A much more dynamic, and fragile relationship than most of us care to contemplate. There are more than "politician corrupted by power" stories, there are also many politician does a good thing and fades into the background, or politician leads well for a long time stories too. These are less exciting and usually receive far less press, because they are remarkable in their unremarkable outcomes.
chongli 9y ago
Honestly, I'd prefer to have a government repeatedly fail to implement its own agenda than one which whips violently to and fro like a tree in a storm. When we let the mob into the halls of power we get a lot of bloodshed and little good. The intransigence of the bureaucracy is a feature, not a bug.